Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

tempo-api-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

tempo_create_account

Create a new Tempo account from a key, name, and lead ID. It asks for user confirmation first, returning a preview and token when interactive prompts are unavailable.

Instructions

Create a new Tempo account. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesUnique account key
nameYesAccount name
statusNoAccount status (default OPEN)
categoryKeyNoAccount category key
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.
leadAccountIdYesAtlassian account id of the account lead (required by Tempo)
monthlyBudgetNoMonthly budget in seconds
contactAccountIdNoAtlassian account id of the contact person
externalContactNameNoName of external contact

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.2.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / leadAccountId / description
      Previous value: -"Atlassian account id of the account lead"New value: +"Atlassian account id of the account lead (required by Tempo)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / leadAccountId / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "key",
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "key",
+  "name",
+  "leadAccountId"
+]
  2. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), the description discloses a non-obvious confirmation protocol: a client-side prompt where supported, otherwise a two-phase preview/confirmToken handshake referencing MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. That is genuine behavioral context the agent could not infer. It stops short of stating auth/permission or error behavior, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the confirmation caveat. The parenthetical detail is dense but each clause carries needed behavioral information; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description does not describe the success/preview payload shape, but it does cover the trickiest part of this mutation (the two-step confirmation) and delegates fields to a fully documented schema. Missing only auth/error context, so it is close to complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including the confirmToken usage rules. The description's only parameter-relevant signal is the confirmToken flow, which the schema itself explains in detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb (Create) plus resource (Tempo account), which cleanly separates it from the get/update/delete/search account siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the create verb but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus tempo_update_account or tempo_create_team, nor any prerequisites. The confirmation guidance is operational rather than a when-to-use rule, so this is only implied guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools